Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

ROSE AOAS, G.R. No. 155339

Petitioner,

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus – AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. March 3, 2008

x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of

Appeals, dated February 22, 2002, in CA-G.R. CR No. 22439 affirming the

conviction of petitioner of the crime of theft, and the Resolution[2] dated

September 3, 2002 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

The Information reads as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of October,

1992 in the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
aiding one another, with intent to gain and without
the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, steal and carry away, eighteen (18) sacks of red
 and white beans, all valued at P24,720.00 belonging
to NATY MADON-EP, to the damage and prejudice of
the owner thereof in the aforementioned amount of
TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY
PESOS (P24,720.00), Philippine Currency.

When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution presented two witnesses: private complainant and

barangay tanod Gregorio Garcia. As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the

evidence for the prosecution are as follows:

Private complainant Naty Madon-ep testified

that she is a businesswoman engaged in the buy and
sell of assorted seeds such as white beans, red
beans, black beans, mongo beans, peas, peanuts and
malagkit rice. She owns four (4) stalls in the city
market of Baguio. One of these stalls is located at
no.1, mongo section. The other three stalls namely:
Stalls, A, B, and C are located at the muslim section
of the said city market. Stalls A and B with
mezzanines are adjacent to each other. Upon the
other hand, stall C which has also a second floor is
located at the back of the stall owned by Laila
Saguid. She uses the mezzanines of stalls A, B and C
as storeroom/bodega for sacks of beans. The ground
floor of stall B was being occupied/rented by Henry
Saguid. As to stall A, she occupied a portion of the
ground floor thereof together with Miling and Janet
Gavino who were engaged in the buy and sell of gold
and broken jewelry. Adjacent to her stall is the stall of
the accused-appellant which has also a mezzanine,
and used by the accused-appellant as her business
store for selling and buying gold and broken jewelry.
Sometime in 1992, the accused-appellant removed
the partition wall separating the mezzanines without
her consent, claiming that she would convert her own
mezzanine floor to a restaurant. Despite demand to
restore the said partition wall, the accused-appellant
refused. On October 16, 1992, when she arrived at
her stall at the mongo section, she noticed that there
were red and white beans scattered in front of the
stall of the accused-appellant and at the parking
space of the rice section. When she reported the
matter to the authorities, it was discovered that there
were also scattered beans inside the ground floor and
mezzanine of the stall of the accused-appellant.
Later, she found out that her 18 sacks of beans
stored at the mezzanine of her stall A, worth
P24,000.00, more or less, were missing. Upon inquiry
from the persons in the city market she was informed
by a certain Gregorio Garcia that the accused-
appellant was the culprit.
 Gregorio Garcia testified that he is a
barangay tanod assigned at the rice section of the
city market of Baguio. On October 2, 1992, at around
8:30-9:00 in the evening, he saw the accused-
appellant together with her two daughters at the end
of the rice section leading towards the buko section.
The accused-appellant told him that they were going
to fix their stall. Thereafter, he saw the accused-
appellant open the door of her stall and bring out one
sack of beans and loaded the same inside the jeep
with the help of its driver. On October 12, 1992, at
around 8:00 in the evening, while he was 10 meters
away behind the jeep, he again saw the accused-
appellant, together with Brenda Sabado, bringing out
five sacks of beans from her stall and likewise loaded
them in a vehicle with the assistance of a male
driver. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and Sabado
boarded the jeep and left, but before leaving, Sabado
gave him P15.00 for his coffee. On October 15, 1992
at about 8:30-9:00 in the evening, he again met the
accused-appellant in front of the Dimalanta Grocery,
which is located at the right side of the rice section of
the city market. The accused-appellant asked him if
he saw a jeepney, to which he answered “no.” He
then went and stayed at the side of the Dimalanta
Grocery and took a cup of coffee, while the accused-
appellant walked towards the direction of Tiong San
Bazaar. After he finished his coffee and while walking
towards the rice section opposite the bakery, he saw
a jeep leaving loaded with sacks of beans. Inside the
said jeep he saw the accused-appellant seated at the
back thereof and another female companion seated
in front with the driver. He knew that the sacks
loaded in the jeep were sacks of beans because he
was just thirty (30) meters away and the place was
heavily lighted. He knew the size of the beans
sacks.[3]

For the defense, petitioner and witness Imelda Bautista presented their

evidence, as follows:

[Rose Aoas] testified that she is a

businesswoman engaged in the buy and sell of gold
and broken jewelry. She was occupying stall No. 9 at
the muslim section of the city market of Baguio
adjacent to the stalls of Anita Fermin and Janet
Gavino. The second floor of her stall was being used
as storage for empty bottles by her friend Imelda
Bautista who was engaged in selling mongo beans
and peanut butter. While the ground floor thereof
was sometimes used by said Imelda Bautista in the
afternoon for storing her goods, she removes the
 same in the morning and sells them at her own stall.
She admitted that the private complainant Naty
Madon-ep has a stall adjacent to her own stall and
that she removed the partition wall dividing their
mezzanines thereof but with the consent of the
private complainant. She removed the said partition
because she intended to convert her
mezzanine/second floor to a canteen but the same
did not materialize. She admitted to have seen
prosecution witness Gregorio Garcia thrice. First was
on October 2, 1992, when she and her son dropped
by the city market to check on her stall. Second, on
October 12, 1992, while she was at the city market
because she helped her friends Ronda Sabado and
Noli Chamos transport the sacks of mongo and
peanuts which the latter bought from Imelda
Bautista. The third time she saw witness Gregorio
Garcia was on October 15, 1992 at around 8:00 in the
evening along Dimalanta, Magsaysay Avenue, while
she was on her way to Helen’s Restaurant located at
Abanao Street to meet some of her friends.

Defense witness Imelda Bautista narrated

that she was engaged in the business of selling
mongo beans and peanut butter. Every afternoon
she kept her goods at the ground floor of the stall of
the accused-appellant located at the muslim section
of the city market of Baguio. She was the one
occupying the second floor/mezzanine of the stall of
the accused-appellant and uses the same as her
storage/storeroom for empty bottles of peanut
butter. On October 12, 1992, she (witness) sold
beans to Ronda Sabado, covered by an ordinary
handwritten receipt.[4]

On November 10, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment, the

dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,

judgment is hereby rendered convicting accused
Aoas of theft and hereby sentences her, after
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer
imprisonment from 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of
prision correctional medium, as minimum, to 8 years,
8 months and 1 day of prision mayor, medium, as
maximum, and to return to the complainant Madon-
ep the 18 sacks of beans stolen, or to pay the value
of said sacks of beans in the amount of P24,720.00 if
the same can no longer be returned.

Costs against the accused.[5]

 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

Hence, this petition for review raising the following assignment of errors:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT SOLELY
ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE SAID
DECISION OF CONVICTION BY THE TRIAL
COURT;

II. THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION THAN THE
TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED AND HER
WITNESS.[6]

Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of

the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal

property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done

with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;

and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or

intimidation against persons or force upon things.[7] Petitioner contends that

these elements of the crime of theft were not proven and, therefore, she deserves

to be acquitted.

We agree.
 Considering that there is no direct evidence pointing to petitioner as the

perpetrator of the crime, the trial court relied solely on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts

from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. It is founded on

experience, observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between

the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved. In order that

conviction be had, the following must concur:

1. There is more than one circumstance;

2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
3. The combination of the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential

that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain

which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to

the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test to determine whether

or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is

that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with one other

and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with accused’s guilt

and inconsistent with his innocence.[8] The circumstances must be proved, and

not themselves presumed.[9] The circumstantial evidence must exclude the

possibility that some other person has committed the offense.

To the appellate court, the following make up the web of circumstantial

evidence against petitioner:

 First, it was established that at around 8:30-9:00 in the
evening of October 15, 1992, the accused-appellant was seen
within the vicinity or in front of the Dimalanta Grocery located
at the right side of the rice section of the city market. The stall
of the accused-appellant, as well as that of the private
complainant, are within the vicinity of the city market and near
the rice section. Second, the accused-appellant asked the
prosecution witness Garcia regarding the whereabouts of a
certain jeepney. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was seen
seated inside the back portion of a jeepney which was loaded
with sacks of beans leaving the said city market. Third, at
about 5:00 in the morning of October 16, 1992, it was found
that beans were scattered not only in front of the stall of the
accused-appellant but likewise inside its ground floor and
mezzanine. Scattered beans which were similar to the beans
owned and stolen from the private complainant were likewise
discovered at the parking space of the city market. Fourth,
on two previous occasions the accused-appellant was seen
within the vicinity of the city market at around 8:00-9:00 in the
evening taking out sacks of beans. Finally, the prosecution
witness positively identified accused-appellant during the trial
as the person bringing out, with the assistance of somebody,
sacks of beans on three (3) evenings, and while seated at the
back portion of the jeepney loaded with sacks of beans. It
need not be stressed that the presence of prosecution witness
Garcia in the vicinity and her having seen him were admitted
by the accused-appellant. She also admitted having removed
the partition between her stall and that of the private
complainant at the mezzanine floor.[10]

After a careful review, we find that the aforesaid circumstantial evidence

does not pass this test of moral certainty as to warrant petitioner’s conviction.

Complainant testified that 18 sacks of beans which she stored in the mezzanine of

her stall were missing. She discovered the loss in the morning of October 16,

1992 when she saw red and white beans scattered on the floor in front of her stall

and that of petitioner.[11] She accused herein petitioner as the culprit after being

informed by barangay tanod Gregorio Garcia that he saw petitioner in the evening

of October 15 riding in a jeepney loaded with sacks of beans.[12] Garcia alleged

that he was only 30 meters away from the jeepney and the place was sufficiently

lighted, enough for him to recognize that the sacks loaded in the jeepney

contained beans.[13]
 It behooves the Court to see how petitioner’s guilt was logically inferred

from Garcia’s testimony which was not corroborated. Whether the sacks loaded

in the jeepney contained beans, and if so, whether these beans belonged to

private complainant were not proven. Where the sacks of beans came from was

not explained since Garcia admitted that he did not actually see petitioner load

the sacks of beans into the jeepney.[14] He stated that he merely met petitioner

in the evening of October 15 in front of the Dimalanta Grocery, when petitioner

asked him for the whereabouts of the jeepney. Thereafter, he saw petitioner

seated inside the jeepney as it was leaving the market vicinity. In pointing to

petitioner, Garcia cited the two previous occasions, October 2 and 12, 1992, when

he encountered petitioner loading sacks of beans in the jeepney. We do not

agree with the appellate court that this circumstance should form part of the

“unbroken chain” and incriminate petitioner of the crime. Complainant testified

that she bought her 18 sacks of beans from a provincemate from Bontoc. The

goods arrived on October 14 and were stored in the mezzanine, and complainant

noticed the loss 2 days thereafter or on October 16.[15] Obviously, the sacks of

beans brought out by petitioner on October 2 and 12 were not the objects of the

alleged crime.

The defense proffered an explanation which, unfortunately, was not

given credence. Defense witness Imelda Bautista testified that she was also

engaged in the buying and selling of beans. Her goods were also kept at the
second floor/mezzanine of petitioner’s stall. Petitioner testified that she brought

out sacks of beans from her stall because one Ronda Sabado bought them from

Imelda Bautista.[16] There being no direct evidence of petitioner’s culpability,

this explanation could have sufficiently created reasonable doubt about

petitioner’s guilt.

The fact that beans were scattered on the floor inside and in front of the

stall of petitioner and in the parking lot does not necessarily lead to the

conclusion that petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime. This cannot be equated

with the principle of law that a person in possession or control of stolen goods is

presumed to be the author of the larceny.[17] Absent proof of any stolen property

in the possession of a person, as in the case at bar, no presumption of guilt can

arise. Instead, the constitutional presumption of innocence should prevail in

petitioner’s favor.[18] As to who caused those beans to be scattered inside and

in front of the stall of petitioner was not proven. Furthermore, it is not farfetched

that those scattered beans could have belonged to Imelda Bautista who also

stored beans in the stall of petitioner. It must be noted that the place is a market,

a public place where people come and go. Presumably, the complainant is not the

only vendor in the market selling beans.

The removal of the partition wall in the mezzanine is also of no moment.

Petitioner admitted that she removed the partition wall in September 1992

because she intended to use the space to sell coffee.[19] Notably, the partition

was removed much earlier than the date of the alleged commission of the crime

in October 1992, and it would simply be conjectural to suppose that this was part
of petitioner’s alleged scheme to stash away the sacks of beans. There should be

more proof presented to show petitioner’s alleged complicity in the crime.

Conviction must rest on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not

on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[20]

The prosecution has failed to show that the circumstances invoked

completely discount the possibility that persons other than petitioner could have

perpetrated the crime. Thus, where the proven facts and circumstances are

capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence

and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty

and is not sufficient to convict the accused.[21]

We find that the conviction of petitioner does not pass the test of moral

certainty. When inadequate and uncorroborated, circumstantial evidence cannot

sustain a conviction.[22]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the

Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch

7, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime

of theft.

No costs.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-
SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate

Justices Candido V. Rivera and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 39-46.
[2] Rollo, p. 47.

[3] Id. at 40-41.

[4] Id. at 41-42.

[5] Id. at 37-38.

[6] Id. at 15.

[7] People v. Avecilla, G.R. No. 46370, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA 466, 472.

[8] People v. Canlas, 423 Phil. 665, 678 (2001).

[9] Francisco, Evidence, p. 605

[10] Rollo, p. 44.

[11] TSN, May 10, 1994, pp. 4-6. (Naty Madon-ep)

[12] Id. at 7.

[13] TSN, July 20, 1994, pp. 11-12. (Gregorio Garcia)

[14] Rollo, p. 32.

[15] TSN, May 10, 1994, p. 15.

[16] TSN, February 1, 1995, pp. 10-13.

[17] People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991, 203 SCRA

707, 717.

[18] Melayo v. People, 440 Phil. 806, 818 (2002).

[19] TSN, February 1, 1995, p. 8; records, p. 75.

[20] People v. Muleta, 368 Phil. 451, 476 (1999).

[21] Gan v. People, G.R. No. 165884, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 550, 571.

22
People v. Ferras, 351 Phil. 1020, 1034 (1998); People v. Ilaoa, G.R.
No. 94308, June 16, 1994, 233 SCRA 231, 235.